,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
If it was between Rand and Hillary I guess I could hold my nose while marking the republican ballot . . .
pretty simple for me...anyone on team RED! Paul included.
I would. In fact,I sure prefer him to the three you mentioned.
Well if he is the only alternative to a liberal. My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top, and then create the opportunity to label his views as main stream conservatism.
I don't fall clearly on either side of the line but I'd vote for RP in an instant over Hilary.
My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top,
What is there about libertarian ideology that is in opposition to mainstream conservatism?
We gotta vote for the R candidate, whoever it is!!
If he wins the GOP nomination I'll vote for him. Is he my choice of all the GOP candidates who have announced they are running.... no. I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Scott Walker over him.
My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top,
What is there about libertarian ideology that is in opposition to mainstream conservatism?
Nothing
I don't think he will get the nomination.
But if he does, I will damn sure be voting for him, or whoever else gets the nomination. I see no other way.
My point in asking the question is to demonstrate that there's hardly any conservative group that wouldn't vote for Rand Paul in the general election. But the plain fact is, there's a significant percentage of voters, mostly the younger people, who absolutely will not vote for any establishment GOP candidate, but they will vote for Rand Paul.
If the GOP selects Rand Paul, it keeps all of the votes that any other candidate would get plus it gets to add those voters who won't vote for any other GOP candidate.
It's just arithmetic.
In the general election Rand will get everybody who is going to vote Republican regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he'll get the libertarian voters (who won't vote for any other GOP candidate) plus, he'll get a big chunk of the swing vote. (probably more than any other GOP candidate)
I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul. He plays politics a bit more than I like. But in a general election setting, he can pull more votes than any other GOP candidate out there.
So,...do you want Rand,...or are you ready for 8 more years of Democrats?
What if? What if?
God this is gonna be a looooooooooooooooong eighteen months.
and a very expensive 18 months. The money expected to be spent on this election is obscene!
Should be outlawed.
We gotta vote for the R candidate, whoever it is!!
^^^This^^^
I'd have little problem voting for him.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
If he's the candidate opposing Hillary or O'Malley, I'll vote for him. I doubt I'll back him in the primary.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
Those who are at odds with his foreign policy, myself included.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
Those who are at odds with his foreign policy, myself included.
Yeah,..Hillary is much more militaristic than Rand, if that's what you're looking for.
If he's the candidate opposing Hillary or O'Malley, I'll vote for him. I doubt I'll back him in the primary.
Which GOP candidate do you think has a better chance of winning the general election than Rand?
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
Got some reality for you...Not every Republican voter is a conservative. Many in the last mid-term were middle road fence sitters who would be scared schidtless by Rand Paul.
His nomination would result in a fiasco not seen since Goldwater's run.
I would hold my nose and vote for anyone running as an R against any Democrat, but Paul isn't going to be nominated, so I won't have him as my problem voting Republican, as I have every election since turning 21 long ago.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
The problem is that there are too many not a part of any conservative demographic.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
Got some reality for you...Not every Republican voter is a conservative. Many in the last mid-term were middle road fence sitters who would be scared schidtless by Rand Paul.
hmmmmm,...I believe that Rand would appeal to the middle more than any GOP candidate in a long time.
I don't think any other GOP candidate could take the middle very well at all.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
The problem is that there are too many not a part of any conservative demographic.
Well, that's true, but they're not voting republican, anyway.
Which GOP candidate do you think has a better chance of winning the general election than Rand?
There are some on here who are perfectly happy with the direction this country is headed. They just would be much happier if the establishment GOP was at the helm.
If he's the candidate opposing Hillary or O'Malley, I'll vote for him. I doubt I'll back him in the primary.
Which GOP candidate do you think has a better chance of winning the general election than Rand?
At this point, I'm not sure if any of them have a really strong chance of winning the general election.
The problem isn't who on here wouldn't vote for Rand Paul, but the problem is who NOT on here would vote for him.
What conservative demographic do you think wouldn't vote for Rand?
Those who are at odds with his foreign policy, myself included.
Yeah,..Hillary is much more militaristic than Rand, if that's what you're looking for.
Let me rephrase that. He wouldn't be my first choice, but if nominated, I would have to vote for him. His isolationism would be as dangerous, if not more so, than the mess the current [bleep] has made.
Rand isn't an isolationist.
He isn't my first choice in the primary, but if he made it to the general, I'd be happy to vote for RP...
Jeb Bush is the only one who will make me stay home.
If he's the candidate opposing Hillary or O'Malley, I'll vote for him. I doubt I'll back him in the primary.
Which GOP candidate do you think has a better chance of winning the general election than Rand?
At this point, I'm not sure if any of them have a really strong chance of winning the general election.
I agree. But due to the points I made in a previous post, I believe Rand is the only realistic chance the GOP has in the next presidential election.
Nominating any other GOP candidate automatically eliminates about 6% of the GOP vote (hardline libertarians, not to mention the swing vote that no other GOP candidate can pull)
Nominating Rand doesn't eliminate *any* of the GOP vote and quite possibly will bring in much more of the middle than any other GOP candidate.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
I think Rand Paul is about the ONLY one I'd not vote for if nominated
I will cast my vote for the candidate on the republican ticket , even though being from the smallest state(population wise) it is meaningless. We all debate politics like we actually have a say in them anymore. Sad fact is our government is so big and so corrupt it does not need the voting public for anything other then tax money. State and local governments can be influenced to some degree ,but think about the last grass roots effort that produced a federal level politician.
My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top,
What is there about libertarian ideology that is in opposition to mainstream conservatism?
The level of federal government and regulation. Where I am for small government, I'm not for no fed government, where I'm for limited smart military involvement, I'm not for total isolationism.
He isn't my first choice in the primary, but if he made it to the general, I'd be happy to vote for RP...
Jeb Bush is the only one who will make me stay home.
That happens (which is highly likely) then there's no any reason to even hold elections. Just give it to the nag now and the campaign funds to the poor.
My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top,
What is there about libertarian ideology that is in opposition to mainstream conservatism?
The level of federal government and regulation. Where I am for small government, I'm not for no fed government, where I'm for limited smart military involvement, I'm not for total isolationism.
Libertarian ideology is based on small government.
It's not isolationist.
If he's the candidate opposing Hillary or O'Malley, I'll vote for him. I doubt I'll back him in the primary.
Which GOP candidate do you think has a better chance of winning the general election than Rand?
The guy who won two governmental elections in a liberal state.
My first time voting was 1988, I do not vote straight ticket but have never had to decide who I wanted to be president. The basic Dem platform assures I will vote GOP.
He isn't my first choice in the primary, but if he made it to the general, I'd be happy to vote for RP...
Jeb Bush is the only one who will make me stay home.
That happens (which is highly likely) then there's no any reason to even hold elections. Just give it to the nag now and the campaign funds to the poor.
No kidding..
I voted for Dole, McCain, Romney. Whenever they run a Milquetoast candidate, they lose big..
The Hag is extremely vulnerable if somebody would stand up and give it to her with both barrels. Obama was the same way in 2012, but Romney had the moxy of a 6 year old girl...
I'd vote for him if he's on the ticket, but Marco Rubio and his ilk are the future of the GOP.
I don't think Romney can overcome his failure in 2012. For one thing, he *totally* disenfranchised the libertarian element in the GOP. They won't vote for Romney. In fact, many would undoubtedly throw their votes to the Democrats to protest a Romney nomination.
In any event, I don't think he can win the nomination.
I don't think Romney can overcome his failure in 2012. For one thing, he *totally* disenfranchised the libertarian element in the GOP. They won't vote for Romney. In fact, many would undoubtedly throw their votes to the Democrats to protest a Romney nomination.
In any event, I don't think he can win the nomination.
I think people would puke in record levels if he got in again, I was talking Walker.
I'd vote for him if he's on the ticket, but Marco Rubio and his ilk are the future of the GOP.
Rubio was one of the gang of 8.
That's going to be hard to overcome.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gang-eight-immigration-House/2013/07/17/id/515556/
Would not be a choice I would make, but I would vote for anyone over Hillary.
Those who say they won't vote for PAUL, BUSH, etc...Hillary will thank you.
I don't think Romney can overcome his failure in 2012. For one thing, he *totally* disenfranchised the libertarian element in the GOP. They won't vote for Romney. In fact, many would undoubtedly throw their votes to the Democrats to protest a Romney nomination.
In any event, I don't think he can win the nomination.
I think people would puke in record levels if he got in again, I was talking Walker.
Obamatrade
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/11/scott-walker-pushes-obamatrade-on-eve-of-vote/
Where is Paul on immigration? You aren't going to get everything you want.
My point in asking the question is to demonstrate that there's hardly any conservative group that wouldn't vote for Rand Paul in the general election. But the plain fact is, there's a significant percentage of voters, mostly the younger people, who absolutely will not vote for any establishment GOP candidate, but they will vote for Rand Paul.
If the GOP selects Rand Paul, it keeps all of the votes that any other candidate would get plus it gets to add those voters who won't vote for any other GOP candidate.
It's just arithmetic.
In the general election Rand will get everybody who is going to vote Republican regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he'll get the libertarian voters (who won't vote for any other GOP candidate) plus, he'll get a big chunk of the swing vote. (probably more than any other GOP candidate)
I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul. He plays politics a bit more than I like. But in a general election setting, he can pull more votes than any other GOP candidate out there.
So,...do you want Rand,...or are you ready for 8 more years of Democrats?
You make good points, I'd vote Paul if he got the nomination in a much lighter mood than Romney or McCain the last two elections.
I like Cruz, Walker and even Paul. What I want is a younger nonbabyboomer, who electrifies the demographics, has the juice. That's what Obama did, rockstarred to the whitehouse.
The GOP should have already been showcasing these guys in their current politics, supporting them and putting them in leadership positions.
But it's a broken party.
Good points though Bristoe, the primaries will tell if Paul has the juice with the people, I'd bandwagon whatever young gun gets it.
Kent
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Freedom is an illusion. Since man wrote the bible, man has been controlling man.
Where is Paul on immigration? You aren't going to get everything you want.
No candidate will take a hard and fast stand on illegal immigration. Rand pretty much says what all of them say.
I don't think Romney can overcome his failure in 2012. For one thing, he *totally* disenfranchised the libertarian element in the GOP. They won't vote for Romney. In fact, many would undoubtedly throw their votes to the Democrats to protest a Romney nomination.
In any event, I don't think he can win the nomination.
But look at the bright side, when they didn't or won't vote for Romney and vote for the other side (Dems) they can say see, we told ya. (With there arms folded across there chests). If they throw there vote to the Dems, they are only [bleep] themselves and the country, but dammit they showed us.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Freedom is an illusion. Since man wrote the bible, man has been controlling man.
That's true enough. Liberty is hard to hold. At this point I'd be satisfied with an administration that worked towards sound money and keeping America out of stupid wars.
I doubt if any candidate can do all of that during an administration, but I'd like to have a President that got the country pointed in that direction.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Freedom is an illusion. Since man wrote the bible, man has been controlling man.
Control goes back further than that, by a good ways. Dawn of agricultural civilization might be a good starting point.
Since we were told not to eat the apple.
so true. So very very true!!
I'd vote for ANYONE on the Rep ballot.
I'd vote for ANYONE on the Rep ballot.
As would I, but not so with the ENLIGHTENED Rand supporters.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Freedom is an illusion. Since man wrote the bible, man has been controlling man.
Lotta truth in that. For a lotta people here, what they want is control, not freedom (so long as they are part of the controlling class.
But now they have evidence of a 40,000 year old murder so it goes back far before the bible, much less agriculture.
Romney alienated several GOP constituencies with his words, actions and just for being Mitt Romney. If I knew that the GOP would hold both the House and the Senate with substantial majorities I would consider voting for O'Malley only. Gridlock is often times these days the best course of action in domestic politics. The reason I can't is those 70 and 80 year old members of the Supreme Court. And that makes me even more nervous about how the 2016 elections shake out. The Court is being packed with lock-step liberals and just one more will further polarize the country and begin to pit state against state.
It is what it is.
The GOP field of candidates (and supposed candidates) are about the most unelectable bunch I've seen in a long time. I can't understand why some of them are even bothering to run. Even the GOP candidate with the potential to draw the most votes may not be able to win the general election.
But it seems to me that Rand Paul has the ability to draw more votes than any other candidate in the GOP cast of characters.
It's going to be a tough election for the GOP even with the support of the libertarian faction of the GOP.
Without it, the GOP will definitely lose.
Rand is the only candidate who can deliver the libertarian vote.
I'd vote for ANYONE on the Rep ballot.
As would I, but not so with the ENLIGHTENED Rand supporters.
Yup, those that don't vote against the dems may as well be in bed with em.
I'd vote for ANYONE on the Rep ballot.
As would I, but not so with the ENLIGHTENED Rand supporters.
Yup, those that don't vote against the dems may as well be in bed with em.
The GOP is badly split. The libertarian element within the GOP considers the establishment Republicans to be every bit as odious as the Democrats,....and I can't say that I disagree with that perspective.
I'd vote for ANYONE on the Rep ballot.
As would I, but not so with the ENLIGHTENED Rand supporters.
Yup, those that don't vote against the dems may as well be in bed with em.
The GOP is badly split. The libertarian element within the GOP considers the establishment Republicans to be every bit as odious as the Democrats,....and I can't say that I disagree with that perspective.
Which tells me how enlightened they are. Baby steps
Rand isn't an isolationist.
Okay.
Which tells me how enlightened they are. Baby steps
Well, the country has been pointed in the wrong direction through 2 Clinton administrations, 2 Bush administrations, and 2 Obama administrations. (at least)
If that doesn't enlighten someone, they're pretty much past hope.
Maybe the libertarian faction doesn't know what the answer is,...but even a damn fool ought to be able to see what the answer *ain't*.
My point in asking the question is to demonstrate that there's hardly any conservative group that wouldn't vote for Rand Paul in the general election. But the plain fact is, there's a significant percentage of voters, mostly the younger people, who absolutely will not vote for any establishment GOP candidate, but they will vote for Rand Paul.
If the GOP selects Rand Paul, it keeps all of the votes that any other candidate would get plus it gets to add those voters who won't vote for any other GOP candidate.
It's just arithmetic.
In the general election Rand will get everybody who is going to vote Republican regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he'll get the libertarian voters (who won't vote for any other GOP candidate) plus, he'll get a big chunk of the swing vote. (probably more than any other GOP candidate)
I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul. He plays politics a bit more than I like. But in a general election setting, he can pull more votes than any other GOP candidate out there.
So,...do you want Rand,...or are you ready for 8 more years of Democrats?
Gimme Rand please.
I don't give a fig who the Republican candidate is, I'm going to vote for him to help prevent the utter disaster that the Hildabeast would inflict on our country.
If they nominate Idi Amin, Vlad the Impaler or Heinrich Himmler, that's who I'll vote for and be first in line when the polls open.
My point in asking the question is to demonstrate that there's hardly any conservative group that wouldn't vote for Rand Paul in the general election. But the plain fact is, there's a significant percentage of voters, mostly the younger people, who absolutely will not vote for any establishment GOP candidate, but they will vote for Rand Paul.
If the GOP selects Rand Paul, it keeps all of the votes that any other candidate would get plus it gets to add those voters who won't vote for any other GOP candidate.
It's just arithmetic.
In the general election Rand will get everybody who is going to vote Republican regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he'll get the libertarian voters (who won't vote for any other GOP candidate) plus, he'll get a big chunk of the swing vote. (probably more than any other GOP candidate)
I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul. He plays politics a bit more than I like. But in a general election setting, he can pull more votes than any other GOP candidate out there.
So,...do you want Rand,...or are you ready for 8 more years of Democrats?
I think that's a legitimate point. I don't think Ben Carson has any chance at all, and Rand "should" have some appeal to the center and the Democrats that hate Hillary.
Rubio has been a Senator since 2009, Cruz since 2012, Rand since 2011
Walker is a 2 term governor, although his second term just started last year.
Rubio born '71, Cruz '70, Walker '67, Paul '63
Ben Carson has never held public office. I've reserved commenting on him because he seems popular but seriously - electing a man who has never held public office - not even dog catcher to the most political position in the world? A single term candidate has enough issues - I can't imagine a guy that has never legislated in his life.
Jeb Bush was Florida governor from 1999 to 2007 and you know his pedigree. As he said, the day he was born he met two presidents. He is 62 years old.
My point is that it doesn't really take much to understand why Bush is the old guard guy for the GOP. Not only does he have the most experience but he has the most connections and is a brand name that would have some level of respect globally (I have no idea whether that would be good or bad - its safe to say he won't be winning the nobel peace price on his foreign policy though).
From the GOP stand point, this is going to be an important election - because this really could be the last baby boomer era election. Of course all the big money backers in the GOP are boomers.
The concerns we had for Obama (and Palin) were they were novices in the political arena - Obama would have lost in a landslide (actually he never would have the nomination and would have been bounced early) if two things had not had happened - 1. The country tanked under Bush's watch - it tanked badly and the republican brand was toxic and 2. Hillary went war hawk early badly misreading the stomach the nation has for war (and I think some on here still do) while Obama went all in on being against the war when no other candidate would buck Bush and the 9/11 war campaign. It was a gamble that paid off big.
So to me the question is now - are conservative voters so fed up with the after effects of the Bush era that along with the failed politics of McCain and Romney they see Jeb! as retread of a losing formula to the White House. Clearly there is a significant % of GOP voters who refuse to see this and want the GOP equivalent of Clintons to represent them.
Or is there enough GOP tired of seeing the manufactured glossy candidate of GOP big government and are willing to accept a candidate that is rough around the edges, prone to make some rookie mistakes and is capable of redefining what conservative means (at least in terms of the last 2 decades)? Are there enough moderates that can't deal with rogue Obama to happily vote for a smaller government candidate (because they will not vote for Jeb! as an alternative)?
That is the election in 2016 to me.
I can't vote for Paul in the primary. If you think the world is on fire now, wait until he pulls ALL of our troops out of every foreign country.
However, if he wins the nomination, I'll have no other choice. I'm not staying home and I;m not voting for a Dem.
I would. In fact,I sure prefer him to the three you mentioned.
I'd have to say I'm in that camp also..
I can't vote for Paul in the primary. If you think the world is on fire now, wait until he pulls ALL of our troops out of every foreign country.
However, if he wins the nomination, I'll have no other choice. I'm not staying home and I;m not voting for a Dem.
That about mirrors my position. Makes perfect sense to me....
I'm beginning to feel the same way about Pauls as most people felt about Obama. Please elect one and make them happy.
I don't know that all Bristoe's political analysis of Paul and his appeal to the center is right, but Rand is my first choice of candidates. Cruz is a distant second. I fail to see the point in voting for assclowns like Christie, Bush or even Scott Walker.
I would vote for Rand Paul. But I do not believe he could defeat Hillary if he was given the nomination.
As of right now, I don't see any candidate that can beat Hillary in 2016. The Republican party is an absolute mess and they're already out of time IMO.
Travis
If it was between Rand and Hillary I guess I could hold my nose while marking the republican ballot . . .
You're in good company on the 'fire. This place is overrun with neocons, RINOS, & liberals. And you guys go out of your way to attack conservatives.
After what you guys did to the only patriot in the '12 election, and the only candidate that could've whipped Obamanation, I'll go with the predictability of stupidity. You're gonna help Hillary waltz into the Oval Office.
You might want to keep this in mind in case you didn't figure it out in the '12 election: conservatives are long past done with neocon/RINO/liberal candidates. If you guys nominal another liberal like Romney, I can tell you right now how the election will turn out.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Bistoe, I don't miss the neocons, RINO's, & liberals on the fire, but I sure as heck miss you. You are one of my favorite posters on this joint.
I'm with you again. If it ain't Rand Paul, it won't matter who loses because America will lose.
Well if he is the only alternative to a liberal. My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top, and then create the opportunity to label his views as main stream conservatism.
My fear is what you guys did to the GOP: turned it in to the party of Democratic Light. There is no difference between the Democratic Party and the party of Democratic Light. That's why, like a lot of conservatives, I'm no longer a Republican. I didn't leave the Republican Party. It left me.
I ain't sure what a mainstream conservative is. Might be code for getting another liberty-stealing neocon interventionist elected.
We gotta vote for the R candidate, whoever it is!!
You shoulda learned in '12 that this is a losing strategy. I know of no authentic conservative that voted for the gun-grabbing, baby-killing liberal, Romney.
If he wins the GOP nomination I'll vote for him. Is he my choice of all the GOP candidates who have announced they are running.... no. I'd vote for Ted Cruz or Scott Walker over him.
No more neocons, RINOS, or liberals. Vote Rand Paul.
The 2nd Amendment needs to be protected, marijuana needs to be legalized and Rand Paul needs to be POTUS.
They all have something in common though...their cheerleaders scare off the fans.
The 2nd Amendment needs to be protected, marijuana needs to be legalized and Rand Paul needs to be POTUS.
They all have something in common though...their cheerleaders scare off the fans.
Consider the supporters of Paul on this site and your post becomes a profundity... BTW, I am on record as stating I would vote for (actually AGAINST ANY democrat) Paul if he was the candidate, but those same cheerleaders fail to grasp that concept...
A lot of us want a good strong conservative for president. But if all you have to choose from is a Moderate Republican or a Socialist, Communist, Marxist Democrat, you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. So because all of the conservative voters stayed home and pouted, we ended up with the Socialist, Communist, Marxist. Boy, that worked out well.
The 2nd Amendment needs to be protected, marijuana needs to be legalized and Rand Paul needs to be POTUS.
They all have something in common though...their cheerleaders scare off the fans.
I don't feel scary, nor do I think I appear that way. I try to do the right thing first and look to appearances second. Sometimes doing the right thing and doing what appears to be the right thing are not one in the same. I will go out of my way to make sure my actions are not portrayed wrongly. At some point though, it is up to the viewer to make the distinction between what is truly good and bad.
As to the foreign policy issue...I believe that pacifists get run over. I also believe that we cannot continue to be a free country unless we allow others to do so minus a clear and direct threat. We also cannot
afford to be the world's policeman. Many on here decry public schools shouting that they don't want to pay for somebody else's kids. Fair enough, but I don't want to pay for somebody else's defense.
A lot of us want a good strong conservative for president. But if all you have to choose from is a Moderate Republican or a Socialist, Communist, Marxist Democrat, you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. So because all of the conservative voters stayed home and pouted, we ended up with the Socialist, Communist, Marxist. Boy, that worked out well.
Wrong. Nearly everybody on this site, voted in the exact manner you describe...for McClown and Romney. That's what I did. The big boys and their mouthpiece, the media, made sure you had only an ultra liberal or a liberal to vote for. McClown and Romney were backup plans that didn't have to come into play. We aren't being outvoted due to conservatives staying home. We are being outvoted due to systematic treason endemic in both parties with it easily visible in the lack of any security on our southern border and the lack of almost any rudimentary checks on who votes and how many times. We are outnumbered.
A lot of us want a good strong conservative for president. But if all you have to choose from is a Moderate Republican or a Socialist, Communist, Marxist Democrat, you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. So because all of the conservative voters stayed home and pouted, we ended up with the Socialist, Communist, Marxist. Boy, that worked out well.
http://www.breitbart.com/
333,000 Votes in 4 Swing States Would Have Given Romney the Presidency
by Michael Patrick Leahy11 Nov 2012On November 6, 2012, 3.2 million fewer Americans voted for Mitt Romney than President Obama. 61.8 million Americans voted for Obama, while only 58.6 million voted for Romney.
Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%–not a landslide for Obama by any means, but on the other hand not the “neck and neck” outcome many predicted–Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.
The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.
Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s 327,870.
Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney’s 4,162,174.
Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779
Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s 1,789,618.
Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.
OR you could count the numbers this way...
Florida: 73,858
Ohio: 103,481
Virginia: 115,910
Colorado: 113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.
Who is there among the GOP candidates who could do better than Romney?
Paul would get my vote if he was the GOP nominee, without question.
All of them but Bush. (Edited to add..and Graham)
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Freedom is an illusion. Since man wrote the bible, man has been controlling man.
That's true enough. Liberty is hard to hold. At this point I'd be satisfied with an administration that worked towards sound money and keeping America out of stupid wars.
I doubt if any candidate can do all of that during an administration, but I'd like to have a President that got the country pointed in that direction.
Egads! Hope springs eternal. Kinda sweet you haven't given up hope B.
but here's the rub, stuff is so far gone the other way, any candidate that could/would point the country in the right direction is going to be vilified for trying to destroy the country
particularly if that candidate is for the Constitution and sound money principles.
from my perspective the die is cast
our 200 years was up in 1976, been some great times since then, thankful to have lived in this truly glorious age.
but from what I can glean tptb have put us in a predicament.
maybe it'll work out just fine. got another maybe 20 years to see it play out.
hope I like what I see as I've kids and grandkids.
hoping they have the same chances at the good life we've all been given.
A lot of us want a good strong conservative for president. But if all you have to choose from is a Moderate Republican or a Socialist, Communist, Marxist Democrat, you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. So because all of the conservative voters stayed home and pouted, we ended up with the Socialist, Communist, Marxist. Boy, that worked out well.
http://www.breitbart.com/
333,000 Votes in 4 Swing States Would Have Given Romney the Presidency
by Michael Patrick Leahy11 Nov 2012On November 6, 2012, 3.2 million fewer Americans voted for Mitt Romney than President Obama. 61.8 million Americans voted for Obama, while only 58.6 million voted for Romney.
Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%–not a landslide for Obama by any means, but on the other hand not the “neck and neck” outcome many predicted–Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.
The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.
Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s 327,870.
Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney’s 4,162,174.
Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779
Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s 1,789,618.
Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.
Thank you.
OR you could count the numbers this way...
Florida: 73,858
Ohio: 103,481
Virginia: 115,910
Colorado: 113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.
Thank you again.
That's why Wall Street and the establishment propped up Romney. They figured anybody could beat Obama and they didn't want radical change.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Freedom is an illusion. Since man wrote the bible, man has been controlling man.
That's true enough. Liberty is hard to hold. At this point I'd be satisfied with an administration that worked towards sound money and keeping America out of stupid wars.
I doubt if any candidate can do all of that during an administration, but I'd like to have a President that got the country pointed in that direction.
Egads! Hope springs eternal. Kinda sweet you haven't given up hope B.
but here's the rub, stuff is so far gone the other way, any candidate that could/would point the country in the right direction is going to be vilified for trying to destroy the country
particularly if that candidate is for the Constitution and sound money principles.
from my perspective the die is cast
our 200 years was up in 1976, been some great times since then, thankful to have lived in this truly glorious age.
but from what I can glean tptb have put us in a predicament.
maybe it'll work out just fine. got another maybe 20 years to see it play out.
hope I like what I see as I've kids and grandkids.
hoping they have the same chances at the good life we've all been given.
Actually, my expectations have been reduced to supporting a candidate who will do no further harm in the short term.
Long term, it's got to play out.
A fair number of the field consists of owned, idiot warmongers. Hillary is one of them.
Do I believe that Rand Paul can fix America?
No,...
But maybe an administration headed by him can ward off WW3 for a few more years.
The neocons are truly maniacs.
good read:
http://buchanan.org/blog/a-u-s-russia-war-over-ukraine-15894
Who would you rather have appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, Hillary or __________ GOP?
The Supreme Court is a nursing home for aged lawyers.
The Supreme Court is a nursing home for aged lawyers.
Question too difficult to answer?
No,..it's just that I have no confidence in the SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts could have stopped Obamacare cold.
He didn't.
There's no reason to look to the SCOTUS for any type of conservative relief any longer.
It's just a nursing home.
I can't vote for Paul in the primary. If you think the world is on fire now, wait until he pulls ALL of our troops out of every foreign country.
That fire is never-ending.
The issue that confronts the US is the well that has been used to sprinkle it is nearly tapped.
Let it burn and divert the water closer to home.
The 2nd Amendment needs to be protected, marijuana needs to be legalized and Rand Paul needs to be POTUS.
They all have something in common though...their cheerleaders scare off the fans.
Consider the supporters of Paul on this site and your post becomes a profundity... BTW, I am on record as stating I would vote for (actually AGAINST ANY democrat) Paul if he was the candidate, but those same cheerleaders fail to grasp that concept...
The concept that you fail to grasp is that Romney supporters caused Obamanation's reelection. The liberal press, including Fox News, knew that Romney had zero chance of whipping Obamanation, which is why it duped the gullible in to nominating him.
You haven't learned a thing from the '12 election. Conservatives will not support another neocon/RINO. If the Republican Party nominates a neocon/RINO, Hillary waltzes into the Oval office, not that there's a difference between Democrats and neocons. Both support gun control. Both want a one-world-government thus destroying Ameican sovereignty.
Our neocon/liberal foreign policy of
intervention is destroying America and enslaving us. There is nothing in any of our Founding Documents about some nebulous ideal of democratizing the world. Governmental constructs of other countries are none of our effing business. There was a reason why our Founding Fathers admonished us to stay the he!l outta other countries internal affairs. There was a reason way congress made President Washington's Neutrality Act federal law.
If Rand Paul ain't the nominee, who cares who loses for America will lose. We're BK now and neocons want to fight more foreign wars that are none of our effing business and of absolutely no threat to the USA. Neocons & liberals are insane for doing the same thing over & over while expecting a different outcome.
During the '12 election, other Republican presidential candidates, the Republican Party, and Fox News would have rather had Obamanation reelected than Ron Paul elected. I expect that all three will do the same with Rand.
I can't vote for Paul in the primary. If you think the world is on fire now, wait until he pulls ALL of our troops out of every foreign country.
However, if he wins the nomination, I'll have no other choice. I'm not staying home and I;m not voting for a Dem.
Since you're a neocon, I'd bet that you'd fear that the sky'll fall were we to revert to our Founding Fathers and conservatives' policy of nonintervention.
Tell me why you think a neocon in the White House will be better than a Democrat. They agree on every substantive policy including socialized medicine.
No,..it's just that I have no confidence in the SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts could have stopped Obamacare cold.
He didn't.
There's no reason to look to the SCOTUS for any type of conservative relief any longer.
It's just a nursing home.
I have confidence the SCOTUS is not going away and will be impactful in the coming elections. The leaning of their membership is critical.
The Roberts issue is an interesting one. It may not be anything more than his true beliefs, or it may be something that history will have a hayday with. I hope we know sooner than later.
Roberts said it was a tax. Which means it can be voted on without a 2/3 majority.
Bristoe: IF... he got the G.O.P. nomination I would indeed vote for him over hillarious - any day!
But he would NOT be my first choice for Republican Presidential nominee.
How about you?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
I would, even though he's not quite his father. Now as regards Bush, Rubio, Ryan, or any of the other neocons who've tossed their hats in the ring, there's question whether I would vote for them in the general. I've gone Third Party before (e.g., 1992, 1996, and 2000), and may well do so again if Rand isn't the nominee.
My point in asking the question is to demonstrate that there's hardly any conservative group that wouldn't vote for Rand Paul in the general election. But the plain fact is, there's a significant percentage of voters, mostly the younger people, who absolutely will not vote for any establishment GOP candidate, but they will vote for Rand Paul.
If the GOP selects Rand Paul, it keeps all of the votes that any other candidate would get plus it gets to add those voters who won't vote for any other GOP candidate.
It's just arithmetic.
In the general election Rand will get everybody who is going to vote Republican regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he'll get the libertarian voters (who won't vote for any other GOP candidate) plus, he'll get a big chunk of the swing vote. (probably more than any other GOP candidate)
I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul. He plays politics a bit more than I like. But in a general election setting, he can pull more votes than any other GOP candidate out there.
So,...do you want Rand,...or are you ready for 8 more years of Democrats?
Exactly.
If everybody likes him, he won't have any problem getting elected. I think a better question would be...
Who here isn't sending money to Rand Paul?
Bristoe: IF... he got the G.O.P. nomination I would indeed vote for him over hillarious - any day!
But he would NOT be my first choice for Republican Presidential nominee.
How about you?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
As I've mentioned, I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul. I don't think he can save the country. On the other hand, I don't think he'll further injure the country. Most of the candidates outside of Rand want to continue to draw a hard line in the Middle East, including Hillary.
Many Republican voters also are fans of more war in the Middle East. They can come up with all kinds of rationalizations for it, but when you boil it down, it's just that they like America to show force through war. The particulars aren't important to them.
Many in the Democrat camp will overlook Hillary's warmongering ways in order to put a woman in office. Bengrazi has shown the level of her expertise in such matters,...not good.
The current condition of Iraq shows the level of expertise, concerning war, that the GOP warmongers have demonstrated,...not good either.
The national debt is out of control and the wars in the Middle East keep pushing the debt higher.
To keep the country from deteriorating even more, America's participation in the Middle East wars must be ended and a *lot* of emphasis must be placed on the economy and the strength of the dollar.
The damage is very extensive already and we will probably never get back to where we were. But if somebody doesn't genuinely change the course of this country, and very damn soon, the whole thing is going to flip
flopI'd like to see that put off as long as possible.
If everybody likes him, he won't have any problem getting elected.
The election will be decided in the GOP primary.
Rand has a chance to win the general election because of the libertarian vote and the swing vote.
Nobody else in the GOP can get the libertarian vote or as much of the swing vote as Rand.
It's as simple as that.
Rand has a chance,..the others don't.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
With headlines such as “Rand moves to the left of Hillary” on foreign affairs, Rand is going nowhere in the GOP primaries.
The current path has to change direction, quickly. I fully agree w/ Bristoe's point-Rand could draw enough of the 'on-the-fencers' to get the win. Will the NEOCONS let it happen? Very doubtful.
With headlines such as “Rand moves to the left of Hillary” .
Hillary has a lot of media.
Hillary's media is scared of Rand.
Rand is going nowhere in the GOP primaries.
Rand is going nowhere in the GOP primaries.
So who do you support for the GOP presidential nomination?
c'mon, BOWSINGER. Spit it out.
While Rand is not at the top of my list for the GOP nomination, he is certainly not at the bottom either. I have no clear favorite in this race at this point, I just want to get somebody in the WH who is a lot more trustworthy and a lot less arrogant than the current occupant - that eliminates some Rs and all Ds for me. We'll see what shakes out in the next year . . .
Well I sure would if he was the candidate! To me there is simply no other choice. I couldn't pull the lever for the "D" on a dare.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
With headlines such as “Rand moves to the left of Hillary” on foreign affairs, Rand is going nowhere in the GOP primaries.
So once again the GOP should choose a candidate based upon what the leftist media tells us.
Sure worked well for them in '08 & '12 so why not huh
?
Simply amazing.
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
Politicians, Closeted Blue Lever Pullers here and public employees....
I don't fall clearly on either side of the line but I'd vote for RP in an instant over Hilary.
.... vote for a yellow dog over Hilary.
Roberts said it was a tax. Which means it can be voted on without a 2/3 majority.
THAT is the truth, but do not expect some on this thread to grasp that inconvenient fact.
So who do you support for the GOP nomination, BOWSINGER?
Roberts said it was a tax. Which means it can be voted on without a 2/3 majority.
THAT is the truth, but do not expect some on this thread to grasp that inconvenient fact.
He was a GOP nominated Justice who stood on his ear to misinterpret law just the way Liberals do.
But do not expect some on this thread to grasp that inconvenient fact.
So who do you support for the GOP nomination, BOWSINGER?
Since Sarah hasn't flung her garter into the race, I am hearing "anyone but Paul"?
No,..it's just that I have no confidence in the SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts could have stopped Obamacare cold.
He didn't.
There's no reason to look to the SCOTUS for any type of conservative relief any longer.
It's just a nursing home.
Heller was perhaps the ONLY thing the current SCOTUS has gotten right. Citizens United and McCutcheon were abominations.
No,..it's just that I have no confidence in the SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts could have stopped Obamacare cold.
He didn't.
There's no reason to look to the SCOTUS for any type of conservative relief any longer.
It's just a nursing home.
Heller was perhaps the ONLY thing the current SCOTUS has gotten right. Citizens United and McCutcheon were abominations.
Hella was 5-4...and could have just as easily been 5-4 the wrong way.
I would. In fact,I sure prefer him to the three you mentioned.
This.
Ed
Rand is going nowhere in the GOP primaries.
So who do you support for the GOP presidential nomination?
I have posted my first choice at the bottom of my posts for the past three years...
This is a good fight and I'm proud to be part of it.
Sarah2016
The RINO Hunter
Since we're tossing around crazy hypotheticals, what if Rand put Trump on as his running mate?
lol,..I can't see that happening for many reasons.
Come on, play along. What if it's Trump vs Sanders? Moving to an island is not an option, BTW.
Since we're tossing around crazy hypotheticals, what if Rand put Trump on as his running mate?
Carly Fiorina is running for VP....while running for POTUS.
She's the anti-Hillary....and would appeal to the 52% of the voting block...women.
Hella was 5-4...and could have just as easily been 5-4 the wrong way.
Even more to my point. The one they got right, they tried their best to get wrong.
Hella was 5-4...and could have just as easily been 5-4 the wrong way.
Even more to my point. The one they got right, they tried their best to get wrong.
Yes, that is correct. 1 vote away from a national 2nd amendment disaster.
I can't vote for Paul in the primary. If you think the world is on fire now, wait until he pulls ALL of our troops out of every foreign country.
However, if he wins the nomination, I'll have no other choice. I'm not staying home and I;m not voting for a Dem.
That about mirrors my position. Makes perfect sense to me....
The Iraqi Kurdish forces are skilled fighters that are ready and willing to defeat ISIS, but often do not have the weapons to do so. As one of our closest allies in the Middle East, I fully support sending arms to the Kurdish fighters. This amendment would help ensure the Kurds have the support they need in order to defeat radical Islam.
http://www.paul.senate.gov/…/sen-rand-paul-votes-in-support…
The Kurd situation is an excellent example of Washington's warning against entangling alliances.
The problem with arming the Kurds is, the Kurds are blood enemies of the Turks. Turkey is a member of NATO and a very important strategic ally of the U.S.A. in that region.
The whole situation is indicative of the complications that arise when America allows itself to become militarily involved in the Middle East.
The situation with Syria is just as confusing. A couple of years ago, the American government was trying to get the people stirred up to fight a war against the Syrian government and remove Assad from power. Now, ISIS is at war against the Syrian government and the American government is trying to get the people stirred up to fight a war against ISIS.
The whole damn situation is a mess,...*has* been a mess, and American intervention there has just made it a bigger mess than it was.
It's time to get out of there and not make that mistake again.
Regardless of which side you pick in the Middle East, they're the bad guys. There are no good guys in the Middle East, just one's that are temporarily less bad than some other group.
That was just posted to illustrate to Jorge and others that Rand Paul is neither isolationist nor arbitrarily opposed to the use of force.
My fear is that Paul will do to the GOP what Obama has done to democrats, that being, pushing a libertarian ideology that many will see as over the top,
What is there about libertarian ideology that is in opposition to mainstream conservatism?
The level of federal government and regulation. Where I am for small government, I'm not for no fed government, where I'm for limited smart military involvement, I'm not for total isolationism.
Do you know that there is a difference between anarchism (what you describe above) and libertarianism?
,..if he got the GOP nomination?
It's interesting to me because many say that they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan.
I would vote for my wife's poodle if he got the nomination, rather than vote for Hillary or any other dimocrat.